Ex parte BUSE et al. - Page 2




                 Appeal No. 2000-0875                                                                                     Page 2                        
                 Application No. 08/945,138                                                                                                             


                                                                   BACKGROUND                                                                           
                          The appellants' invention relates to a method for ironing                                                                     
                 a cup and an ironing tool for ironing a cup.  A copy of the                                                                            
                 claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the                                                                                
                 appellants' brief.                                                                                                                     


                          The prior art references of record relied upon by the                                                                         
                 examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                                                                                         
                 Phalin et al. (Phalin)                                4,502,313                                    March 5,                            
                 1985                                                                                                                                   
                 Okakda et al. (Okakda)                                JP 4-100639         1               April 2, 1992                                



                          Claims 10 and 14 to 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                                                                       
                 103 as being unpatentable over Okakda in view of Phalin.                                                                               


                          Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced                                                                     
                 by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted                                                                           
                 rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.                                                                         


                          1In determining the teachings of Okakda, we will rely on                                                                      
                 the translation provided by the USPTO.  A copy of the                                                                                  
                 translation is attached for the appellants' convenience.                                                                               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007